system_memory_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description prepends '[SAFE]' to indicate non-destructiveness, which is a useful behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not detail potential side effects or permissions, but for a read-only info tool, this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the safety indicator, and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention cross-platform availability or performance impact, but it covers the essential information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Following the guideline, no parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description need not add further parameter info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves memory information (total, used, free RAM, swap). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_cpu_info and system_disk_usage by focusing specifically on memory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no guidance on exclusions or alternative tools is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.